Supreme Court to Reconsider the Mandatory 3-Year Practice Requirement for Judiciary Aspirants as Review Petitions Come Up for Hearing Next Week
JURISGRID NEWS NETWORK
14 March, 2026 10:46 PM (2 Mins read)Embedded Files
The Supreme Court of India is set to hear review petitions challenging its earlier decision that made three years of legal practice mandatory for candidates seeking entry into the judicial service as Civil Judges (Junior Division). The matter arises from the larger All India Judges Association case, which deals with reforms in the subordinate judiciary.
In May 2025, the Supreme Court restored the rule requiring a minimum of three years of practice at the Bar before a candidate can appear for judicial service examinations. Earlier, several states allowed fresh law graduates to directly sit for judiciary exams without any prior courtroom experience. The Court held that judicial officers deal with matters involving liberty, property, and rights of individuals, and therefore practical exposure to litigation is essential before becoming a judge.
Following this judgment, multiple review petitions were filed by law graduates, judiciary aspirants, and legal organizations. The petitioners argue that the rule unfairly restricts access to judicial services and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before law and equal opportunity in public employment. According to the petitioners, the rule particularly disadvantages fresh graduates, economically weaker candidates, and women aspirants, many of whom may struggle financially during the initial years of legal practice.
The petitioners have also argued that mandatory litigation experience does not necessarily guarantee judicial competence, and instead the judiciary could rely on structured judicial academies and training programs after recruitment to provide the required practical exposure. They contend that the sudden introduction of the rule has disrupted the preparation plans of thousands of candidates who had already been studying for judiciary examinations under the previous eligibility criteria.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the review petitions in open court, which is unusual because review petitions are generally decided in chambers. The open court hearing indicates that the Court considers the matter to involve important constitutional and policy issues affecting judicial recruitment across the country.
A bench of the Supreme Court has indicated during preliminary hearings that the three-year practice requirement may not be completely removed, but the Court may reconsider the modalities of its implementation. This means the Court may explore options such as phased implementation, relaxation for certain categories, or transitional provisions for candidates who had already started preparing for judicial service examinations.
Since the issue directly affects ongoing recruitment processes, the Supreme Court issued an interim direction to all High Courts to extend the last date for applications for Civil Judge posts until 30 April 2026. This step was taken to ensure that candidates are not unfairly excluded while the Court decides the review petitions.
The Supreme Court also sought responses from various High Courts regarding the rule. Several High Courts have supported the requirement, arguing that practical courtroom experience improves the quality of judges and helps them understand procedural realities, advocacy techniques, and courtroom dynamics. According to these High Courts, prior experience at the Bar helps newly appointed judges perform their duties more effectively.
The central issues before the Supreme Court now include whether the three-year practice requirement should remain mandatory, whether exceptions or relaxations should be introduced, and how the rule should be implemented so that it does not unfairly affect current judiciary aspirants.
The outcome of the case is highly significant because it will determine the future eligibility criteria for judicial service examinations across India. The decision will affect thousands of law graduates who aspire to join the subordinate judiciary and will shape the balance between academic legal knowledge and practical courtroom experience in judicial appointments.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to continue hearing the review petitions next week, after which it may decide whether to uphold, modify, or reconsider the three-year practice requirement for entry into the judicial service.
Google Sites
Report abuse